ArticleEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2026
Accuracy of general-purpose large language models (LLMS) in interpreting adolescent idiopathic scoliosis radiographs: a comparative study with experienced spine surgeons.
Article in European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study evaluates the accuracy of general-purpose, vision-capable large language models (LLMs) in interpreting adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) radiographs and compares their outputs with an expert surgeon consensus reference standard.
methodsThis retrospective comparative diagnostic accuracy study analyzed 128 anonymized AIS radiographic case sets from 128 different patients, including standing coronal and sagittal radiographs and lateral bending films. ChatGPT GPT-5.2 Instant, Gemini 3 Flash, and Grok 4.1 were evaluated through their official web interfaces in January 2026 using the original standardized prompt based on the Lenke classification system. Model inputs were de-identified raw radiographs without measurement lines, Cobb values, vertebral labels, or Surgimap overlays. Three spine surgeons with more than 10 years of deformity surgery experience independently assessed all cases using Surgimap. Surgeon consensus was the reference standard. Cobb angle (CA) accuracy was assessed using mean absolute error and agreement within ± 5°; categorical variables were assessed by exact agreement with 95% confidence intervals.
resultsChatGPT achieved 94.5% agreement within ± 5° of surgeon consensus, with a mean absolute CA error of 2.4°. Gemini achieved 92.2% agreement with a mean absolute error of 2.7°, and Grok achieved 90.6% agreement with a mean absolute error of 3.1°. Exact agreement was substantially lower for Lenke classification, lumbar and sagittal modifiers, neutral vertebra, and stable vertebra identification. Inter-rater reliability among surgeons was high for CA and categorical parameters. No formal inferential ranking between LLMs was performed.
conclusionThe tested general-purpose LLM versions showed limited reliability for comprehensive AIS radiographic interpretation. Their performance was substantially weaker for Lenke classification, modifiers, and fusion-level-related landmarks than for CA estimation. The findings do not support independent use of these systems for scoliosis measurement, education, or surgical planning. At present, these tools should be regarded as supervised documentation or teaching aids rather than measurement or decision-making systems.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42888262What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.